Charles Ato Amissah-Ocran

The defendant Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and sought costs.

The plaintiffs had sued Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. due to a curling iron bearing the 'Bella' name, despite the defendant having no involvement with electrical products.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. The court denied Bella's claim for damages beyond legal expenses, finding the evidence insufficient and the claims improperly advanced.

Regarding costs, the court found Bella entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity due to no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the requested costs, fixing them at $3,000.00, citing Bella's excessive and disproportionate approach to litigation given the simplicity of its defense.

The Plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages and costs arising from the Defendants' failure to close an agreement of purchase and sale for a property.

The Defendants argued the Plaintiffs breached the contract and sought their own damages, but had not filed a counterclaim.

The court found the Defendants were in breach of contract due to their unwillingness to close the transaction, primarily due to an outstanding writ of execution.

The Plaintiffs were awarded specific damages for the deposit, property taxes, and moving expenses to rental accommodation.

The court also awarded litigation costs, but significantly reduced the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs, emphasizing proportionality and the Plaintiffs' failure to respond to a settlement offer.

A portion of damages for additional living expenses was deferred for further assessment.

The respondent bank sought a writ of possession for mortgaged residential premises.

The application judge granted the writ, finding the appellants were occupants and the appellant wife was the beneficial owner.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the order, finding the bank's application was deficient because it failed to join the named mortgagor as a party and lacked the necessary documentary evidence to establish its right to possession.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside without prejudice to the bank's right to pursue further remedies.